What does it matter whether our president is an explicit socialist or not? Democrats embrace the tenets of socialism. Republicans will emulate Democrats to keep power. Congress, as exemplified by Senator Stevens and Congressman Murtha, are openly corrupt and no one seems to give a damn. The Supreme Court has decided that the word no means yes when it comes to free speech and that the government can take your property for any goddamn reason it chooses, including funding the coffers of those who fund them.

The core beliefs that sustained us through all the difficulties, hypocrises, conflicts, and contradictions that are inherent in any and every system of human endeavor are being abandonded in the name of diversity, multicultualism, and tribalism. As I fly over this country, walk the streets of our big cities, or stroll down a fairway at Pinehurst, I remain amazed at what has been accomplished and worry about its fragility. I have bitches and observations, but few answers.

I’ll take your word on it for the ‘not abject failures.’

And actually, McCain, Bush and Reagan were progressive/fascist, while Obama is actually more socialist/communist.

I’d agree with you if we were choosing between a soft socialist (Obama) and a capitalist. But we ain’t. McCain’s a socialist, too, by your standard. So’s Bush. Heck, even Reagan talked about “safety nets.”

I think Obama’s more of a socialist than McCain. But that’s a matter of weighing their policies. And both advocate some pretty bad policies.

“Decidedly mixed results” isn’t a shorthand for “abject failure.” Social Security, Medicare, and various other socialist-lite policies have brought a lot of people out of poverty. They’ve also taken a lot of freedom away from people who would have been responsible enough to invest in their own retirement and health care more wisely and profitably.